hello and welcome to "kqed newsroom". california craft's new rules for recreational cannabis, and a look at an ambitious initiative to slash the homeless population in half. first, president trump's son met last june with a russian lawyer who purportedly had damaging information about the government. trump released the e mail exchange. the revelations add a new twist into whether president trump's inner circle colluded with the kremlin to influence the outcome of the presidential race. meanwhile, on capitol hill, senate republicans are planning to vote next week on a revised plan to repeal and replace

obamacare. they released their new plan this week, but it still faces an uphill battle for passage. and joining me now are politics and government reporter larissa lagos, joe garafoli and car carla maranucci. carla, another revelation today that a former soviet intelligence officer was at that meeting with donald junior, the russian lawyer, jared kushner, former campaign chair, paul manafort. the list goes on. is that enough to prove collusion? >> you know, at this point, someone should remember that famous watergate phrase. it's not the crime, it's the coverup. collusion is not a legal term but certainly becoming a cultural term in this case. when you have this series of events in which the trumps have just not been clear with everyone. it was about adoption.

just two days ago, trump junior was on the "hannity" show saying there is nothing more. this is handing ammunition not only to robert mueller, but to the democrats out there. like brad sherman here of california, who launched the first impeachment issue on obstruction of justice. >> how many ammunition is it, though? because there's been suggestions this is a smoking gun, right? but there is still a lot we don't know. we don't know if this led to other meetings. we don't know if this actually led to real collaboration. >> right, the analogy smoking gun but no dead body. i think the issue is credibility at this point. and does this lose his base? does it make republicans peel off? not quite yet. but the case keeps being built. to the point of lies and lies and on top of lies. just within the day that the "new york times" broke the story of the e-mails in which don junior put out his own, you know, version of them on

twitter. or not version, the same version. you see within that one "new york times" story how much he lied to them in, like, within a three-day period. first it was about adoption, then nobody else was there, now we hear this. so i do think, especially for the special prosecutor, robert mueller, it just adds fuel to the fire for their investigation. >> and potentially the russian guy, actually a u.s. citizen. he can subpoena him. so he can talk to him and possibly get him to flip on the trumps. because right now it's the people in the room are trump family members and the former campaign manager, manafort. >> and could be in more trouble legally. >> he might want to flip. >> so right now collusion, you don't have legally. but you have issues, perjury, campaign donations, obstruction of justice. all of this is becoming a perfect storm. and as said, now the issue is at what point do republicans say enough already and cut themselves loose from what going

on. >> and in the broader context, trump's inner circle keeps on growing of people admitting to contacts with russian officials. we have jared kushner and attorney generals jeff sessions and former national security adviser mike he wil feline. so what has been the reaction from republican officials here in california? >> well, sprinting. sprinting from questions and cameras. the people who are concerned here are the seven republicans, congressional members, who are in districts that will be targeted by the democrats. these guys are freaking out. they want nothing to do with trump. this is -- this is a stink that hurts, that bleeds on to them. >> with the exception of dana rorbach, who embraced russia and embraced the trump line. hey, nothing to see here, this was just opposition research they were looking at. >> and in california, that's even more important, right?

because you have the seven -- the reason these seven districts are being targeted by democrats is they all went blue in the presidential race. they voted for hillary, but still elected republicans to congress. in california, where republicans are such at deficit when it comes to registration numbers, and so many more independents, even in the safely red districts, i do think there is more of a danger of a base peeling off than maybe broadly nationally when you look at the sort of 37% that trump has managed to keep in his camp. >> and also making national headlines this week, of course, the senate gop, revised health care bill. carla, how would this -- how is this different from the original version? >> well, i mean, at this point, some of the tax issues, remember, giving a tax break to the wealthy, that's been peeled off. the fact is, the health industry still gets tax breaks, medical device manufacturing gets tax breaks. drug guys get tax breaks. and the fact is, it is still on the backs of the poor and older americans. and this is where republicans

are going to have a tremendous problem when you're talking about the kind of cuts that they're talking about to medicare. >> yeah, i think the medicaid issue is really keen, especially here in california, where we have really embraced obamacare and expanded it to so many people. one in three americans is on our version of medicaid. so the deep cuts, while they have put in provisions and while california law could sort of still protect people in terms of what plans could offer or not offer, cost is going to be the issue. and not just for the poor, but all of the people who have had to rely on the subsidies through the exchanges. i mean, if premium rates skyrocket and the spigot of federal money on health care is cut off, we're going to be looking at very -- people in the middle class who are deeply hurt by this. >> so what are the chances of this actually passing, joe? last month mitch mcconnell already abruptly cancelled the vote on the original bill. and already senators rand paul and susan collins are saying we're not voting for this thing. there is no more room for error

here. >> one, you could lose one more, and that's about it. and so there will be a vote, he hopes next week, if he has the votes. but they have to do something, as mcconnell says, as the republicans say. we promised this for seven years. so they have to deliver something. the something they're delivering, though, looks less and less like something different. i mean, because when you're -- they gave back the taxes on the rich and, you know, that's a lot of those people are republican voters. they hated the tax on the rich so that's -- so he's already kind of gone back on some of the promises they made. it is a very thin line right now. >> you know, a big thing you heard in, like, rural areas where they really did benefit from obamacare, but was this sort of anger at this idea of the mandate. that they were told by the government they had to buy insurance. and it's interesting to see how republicans are trying to get at that. in practice, they're going to repeal a mandate, but they're also allowing insurers to publish people, who go off insurance rolls. again, the money issue is there. it almost seems like they're

trying to do something that on its face looks like it's repealing obamacare and offering something different. but it's actually going to hurt people more. and so you have to wonder how does that play politically. >> key is the timing. when is it going to hurt them? so if this doesn't go into play for a year, they're safe for the midterm elections, but before that, less and less likely, they could be safe. >> the other concern, the cruz amendment, which allows for sort of sketchy budget priced plans -- >> skimpy plans, they're being called. >> yeah. >> that's right. and which would create two different baskets of patients. the healthy, younger ones, and the older, sicker ones. and we know who is going to pay more under that plan, apparently. >> right. so are californians still protected, given we have our own mandates on what insurers can offer and what they can't? >> i would say it's not entirely clear, because health care is very complicated, as we all learned. but i think the issue is we may be on paper protected in terms of the plan allowed to be covered in this state.

but what those plans cost is an open question. so even people on employer-sponsored plans arguably could be impacted by this. and also this issue of under this new plan how much sort of deference is given to the department of health care at the federal level to sort of give waivers to states and do other things. and a lot of that, you know, is going to potentially benefit red states at the expense of blue states. so i think that that's something that's going to raise questions, too. >> and so, jill, there's a tough dilemma here for republican lawmakers. one, you either defend, taking insurance away from millions of americans. if you pass this thing. or you fail to pass it, and you have failed to repeal obamacare as you had promised the american people for the last seven years. so how is this dilemma affecting the republican party's ability to present itself as the governing party? >> well, that's it. there's no excuse for them not to do something. they have all of the lovers of power in washington. and you're going to see the screws really tighten on someone

like dean heller in nevada, the senator there, where the state has a lot of people on medicaid. and a lot of people getting the benefits of this program. but he's up for re-election. and he's facing a stiff challenge. which way is he going to vote? is he going to vote with his party or the people of his state? >> well, it was interesting that rand paul was the second republican who came out and said i don't even want to vote on this. before all we heard about was susan collins of maine and also lisa murkowski from alaska. the list of people from both the moderate and conservative ranks of the party keeps growing, public about their concerns. it makes you wonder if they'll have the vote. >> and interesting when the party needed its head-most donald trump to bring people in and talk to them about it. in france this week celebrating bastille day out of pocket in washington. and that's got to hurt the republicans, as well. >> well, that, but we also have -- so we've got a bunch of things happening right now. we have got the health care fight. we've got the whole russia donald junior situation. and it's consuming coverage coming out of washington.

so how is this affecting the rest of trump's agenda? >> what agenda? >> there's been no significant piece of legislation passed. most of the action has been in the regulatory era. particularly on the environmental front, various laws being tweaked, stuff that we'll see happen over time. but what's he had? he's had nothing to present to the american people. >> and that keeps getting held up in court. most of it controversial executive orders. a lot of issues around immigration and those sorts of campaign promises blocked by the courts. even some of these environmental rollbacks being blocked by the courts, and other attempts at rolling back obama air regulations, like protecting people who go to for-profit colleges. there is a lawsuit over that now. so i do think that it's not just politically but actually sort of practically their ability to institute any sort of agenda. >> one thing the republicans really wanted was tax reform. and we still have a tax reform plan that's, what, 127 words on two pages? >> yeah. >> it hasn't been spelled out. that's going to be the big fail

for republicans. >> easiest thing for them to pass, too. but they decided to go with health care first. >> got sidetracked by a lot of other things. i wanted to also talk about what's happening within the california democratic party, right? and i think a clear indication of what's happening could -- we could look at it through the lens of the cap and trade bill, which lawmakers are expected to vote on, on monday. there's already a bunch of environmental groups lining up to oppose it. what's going on there? >> yeah, i mean, this is interesting. we have seen this sort of climate change debate really change focus in recent years as brown has continued to publish are push an agenda. a year or two ago, the oil industry trying to kill the bill. now brown has made olive branches to them, included things aimed at protecting businesses. and now you have the environmental justice community, people on the left flank of the party really pushing back. he has tried to bring in a sort of companion bill that deals with air quality issues to address some of those concerns. but i do think, as you noted, this speaks of brooder issues within the democratic party.

as the base has grown and power has grown, business interests have put a lot more money into electing moderate democrats. and they have a lot more power in sacramento. so what you see is this sort of more liberal, progressive democrats, not just on cap and trade, but on other issues like around single payer which i want to talk about. really sort of pushing back and saying this is not what democrats stand for. and you are not really a democrat if you're reporting this. >> why nancy pelosi is now trying to lay down the agenda for what democrats stand for. and i know you spoke with nancy pelosi earlier this week. and she is working on a plan on how to present democrats in the trump era. what is her plan? >> well, we're waiting to see what the plan is. and she got a bit ticked off at me a couple weeks ago, saying, democrats don't have a plan. and how she is responsible for some of the problems democrats have. not all of them. and she said, well, we're coming out with one. and she likened it to this era to when george bush was president and started his second term. high-level popularity.

both houses of congress. but the democrats went and she asked steve jobs and other people -- how do we rebrand ourselves? you have to know who you are. so democrats then sort of researched and came up with some ideas. that's the process they're in now. they're going to start rolling out some stuff soon. >> did she give a sense of who they're talking to? rural voters? >> they're talking to rural voters, people who have left the party. they need to bring black voters in. black voters did not vote for hillary clinton in the same numbers they voted for president obama. they need to sort of keep the latino coalition going. but they -- they don't know who they are yet. they said, here's our platform. and it's a sprawling platform. but that's -- you need a bumper sticker. they don't have a bumper sticker. >> and you both have been talking about -- nancy pelosi. that is one thing -- she's -- republicans will try and hang her around the neck of any democrat who runs against them. here leadership, and where the party goes in the future. and as you said here in

california, we were talking about gas tax. when the democrats own the super majorities in both houses of legislation and every statewide office, then they've got to deal with a party that's basically splitting apart over, you know, who is the business-friendly democrat and who is the progressive democrat. gas tax, health care, single-payer, you know. and infrastructure. other issues that are out there. >> and real quickly, what are some of the other issues dividing california democrats? >> i would say singer payer. the bill that got through the senate was sort of a shell of a bill, they didn't have a funding mechanism for a $400 billion plan. and essentially, after the assembly speaker killed that, he has gotten death threats. there has been a lot of consternation on the left that sort of democrats are abandoning their base. and i think this is an issue that will keep going, especially if health care gets through the senate. >> okay. so much to discuss. and clearly, not enough time for the three of you. carla with politico.

and joe garea foli with the chronicle. medical cannabis has been legal for use in california for 20 years. last november, voters approved it for recreational use. state officials have less than six months to finalize the rules for medical and recreational pot and begin issuing licenses for growing to distributing it. i spoke last month to lori ajacks with the effort to regulate marijuana. >> thank you for speaking with us. >> thank you for having me. >> prior to your current job, you were responsible for regulating alcohol. how is this, regulating cannabis, different from regulating alcohol? >> a big difference is that alcohol is federally legal, which cannabis is not. so testing standards and labeling, the state is doing that itself for cannabis

regulation. >> you brought up the fact that cannabis is still illegal at the federal level. do you worry about a possible crackdown? attorney general jeff sessions has already said he's opposed to any attempts to legalize cannabis, even for medical use. do you worry about a crackdown at the federal level, and how would that affect california? >> so we worry about a lot of this stuff. but we feel pretty confident that as long as we're making sure we're keeping it out of the hands of minors, that we have public safety, consumer safety as the forefront of our regulations, and making sure that we're keeping -- making sure that things aren't going outside of the state, i think we're pretty confident that as long as we're keeping in line with that, that we won't have any federal intervention. but, of course, it's something that is out of the control of the bureau. so we focus on the things that we can control, which is putting together a model regulatory system for california. >> have you been looking at other states that have legalized recreational cannabis, looked at

how they handled it, and applying some of the lessons learned there to california? >> yeah, we have been talking to a lot of the states that currently have either adult use or medical regulation legalized in their state, and trying to look at what they did and their states and make sure we don't make the same mistakes in california. colorado and washington, oregon, they were the first pioneers to do this. but i think we can learn from, you know, a strong regulations around manufactured goods, such as edibles and whatnot. and also what oregon has been going through with the testing labs and making sure we have enough testing labs in place to make sure that there's -- cannabis will be tested and we know the product is going to be safe. so we're looking at all of those things. and i think we just have to be ready that once we get our regulations in place, they're finalized, we start issuing licenses. if things aren't working, then we've got to look, is there a better way to do things and a more efficient way to do things. so we want to keep bringing people in the regulated market and keep them here. >> because the industry is largely cash-based, what kinds

of challenges does that propose for you in trying to regulate it? >> yeah, it's a difficult situation when the folks that you're regulating deal mainly in cash. so it's one of those things that also is difficult for the licensees and making sure they're keeping their employees safe and trying to transport cash. so that is a big concern for the state on figuring out the banking issue. one thing that is right now as state treasurer john chung has a cannabis banking working group that we have been working with him and other taxing agencies and the industry and the local representative to try to figure out a solution so that we can make our licensees, our employees safe and try to figure this banking issue out. >> most of the cannabis that's grown in california still ends up in the black market. with you describe your agency's efforts to stop the growth of that black market and how are you going about doing so?

>> some of what we're looking at is having our track and trace system that the department of food and agriculture will be developing that program. so all cannabis is going to have to be tracked from cultivation all the way to retail sale. also for the bureau, once we issue those licenses, we have got to be out there doing our inspections, checking on licensees and making sure people are following the rules. >> you're trying to regulate an entirely new industry here, and an industry that has been underground and much of it, you know, very black market for so long. >> it is a big task, and a huge challenge. and i have a lot of great people that work for the bureau. but we're also working with a lot of different agencies, department of public health, department of food and ag. you name it. but i'll tell you what. there are times when you start to think about the enormity and then you have these regulations here where people come out, they're really positive. even though they might not like everything we have put in regulations, it energizes the bureau to keep going, and i'm

really confident we're going to get this done and get it done right for california, because it's just so important for the people of california that we get this right. >> all right. lori ajax, thank you very much. >> thank you for having me. turning now to homelessness. a local nonprofit tipping point has pledged to raise $100 million through private funds to help san francisco cut its chronically homeless population in half in five years. san francisco already spends more than $200 million annually on support services for the homeless. tipping point ceo daniel lurie told me last month why he thinks this new public/private partnership will succeed in getting people off the streets. joining me now is tipping point ceo, daniel lurie. thank you very much for joining us. >> thanks for having me. >> cutting san francisco's chronically homeless population, roughly around 2,000 people right now, that's a big goal over the next five years. how do you plan to do that? >> it is. and tipping point has come up with a three-pronged approach.

one is to create more units of housing, whether that's building new stock or mining existing buildings for units that are still available. the second prong is to attack the root causes, which means going after the criminal justice system. the foster care system and the mental health system, and helping to beef them up, because if they aren't working properly, no matter how many units you build, you are going to have people hitting the streets as fast as we can house them. and our third prong is to work very closely with the city and county of san francisco and help optimize the public sector. and so helping them do their work, even more efficiently and effectively. because as we all know, that's actually where the real dollars are. the city and county of san francisco is expected to spend $300 million next year on this issue. and we want to support them in doing that to the best of their abilities. >> let's take your first point, housing, and dig down deeper on

that. because that, of course, is one of the biggest issues. and san francisco's real estate landscape is already so jam-packed. where would you find new sites? >> it feels like the whole city is under construction right now. there is no question. but there are sites. there are private sites, there are city-owned sites. there are empty churches all over this city. it takes $500,000 and over five years to build a unit of supportive housing. we can all agree, that is too expensive and takes too long. we need to get those numbers in half if possible. and so tipping point is going to work with the city, with private developers, with union and labor, to see if we can do a better job on that front. there is no question that we can build more housing in this city. we just need the will. >> why did you decide to take this on now? >> it's the issue of our time. if we don't take it on, who will? i mean, there is no one coming

to the rescue. every administration for the last 35 years has tried to take this on. with varying degrees of success. but what we're seeing on the streets today is simply unacceptable. we're not taking care of our own. and tipping point wants to do that. >> and are you looking to other cities, models in other cities, you would like to adopt here? >> listen, we have looked at different cities, whether they be houston or salt lake. but we are seeing that this is a national trend. homelessness is on the rise. the federal government for years has not been spending enough dollars to build affordable housing. we have a crisis at the state level here in california. not enough supportive and affordable housing being built. so, yes, we have looked at other cities. but there is no city that matches the rental market and the expensive rental market we have here in san francisco. so like many other problems, we have to come up with an innovative solution here in san

francisco. >> but why we invent the wheel, for example? houston and salt lake city have this program where they track people and make sure they're getting the most suitable services for them. new york has a program that identifies people most likely to end up in jails and emergency rooms so they can target the services toward them. >> no. and we definitely have and we have gone up to seattle, we have seen what they're doing with wet houses and in portland. so we do know what works in other cities. and we absolutely will take those ideas. but i will say that there is no place that -- houston, you have a lot of land that you can build on. salt lake was starting from a pretty low base in terms of homelessness. seattle, they just came out with somewhere near 12,000 homeless people, more than here in san francisco. so we need to come up with innovative solutions. tipping point is working hand-in-hand with the private sector and the public sector. when there's good ideas nationally, like always, we will bring those to bear on this issue. >> why do you focus only on san

francisco? is there any interest here in working with, for example, oakland, san jose? commissioner, you're not pushing the homeless burden to them. >> absolutely. so we at tipping point have always been focused on the bay area. for this initiative in its first few years, we want to focus solely on san francisco. we have been in talks with mayor schaaf. we know mayor liccardo well. santa clara just passed a bond measure. we think if this can work in san francisco, it can work throughout the region. >> so there are long-term plans to go ahead and expand into san jose, oakland? >> absolutely, absolutely. and we know we have mayors in place in those cities that are eager for us to come there. but we first have to get it right and we wanted to start here in san francisco. >> all right. much luck to you, daniel lurie at tipping point. thank you for being here. >> thanks for having me. and that will do it for us. thank you for joining us. i'm thuy vu.

for more, go to kqed.org/newsroom.

robert: the russia probe widens, shifting the white house into crisis mode, again. i'm robert costa. we get the back story on the new revelations involving the president's son, son-in-law, and a former russian spy, tonight on "washington week." president trump: i have a son who's a great young man, took a meeting with a lawyer from russia. nothing came of the meeting. robert: president trump defends his son's decision to talk with a russian attorney who offered damaging information about hillary clinton. >> for me, this was opposition research, they had something, maybe concrete evidence to all the stories i have been hearing about that were underreported for years, not just during the campaign. robert: and the president's son-in-law, jared kushner, also under fire, for attendance at that meeting, and for failing to list dozens of foreign contacts on hisec